# TOWER: Tree Organized Weighting for Evaluating Complex Instructions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06089 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06089/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Oct 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12244/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08568/) (2023)
- [WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09583/) (2023)
- [How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04751/) (2023)
- [Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10702/) (2023)
- [WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04770/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Incentivizing Reasoning for Advanced Instruction-Following of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01413/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex human-written instructions is essential for their deployment in real-world applications. While benchmarks like Chatbot Arena use human judges to assess model performance, they are resource-intensive and time-consuming. Alternative methods using LLMs as judges, such as AlpacaEval, MT Bench, WildBench, and InFoBench offer improvements but still do not capture that certain complex instruction aspects are more important than others to follow. To address this gap, we propose a novel evaluation metric, textscTOWER, that incorporates human-judged importance into the assessment of complex instruction following. We show that human annotators agree with tree-based representations of these complex instructions nearly as much as they agree with other human annotators. We release tree-based annotations of the InFoBench dataset and the corresponding evaluation code to facilitate future research.